Microsoft Questions FCC's 'White Spaces' Decision

narramissic writes "Late last month a wireless prototype submitted by Microsoft and other members of the White Spaces Coalition was rejected by the FCC because it interfered with cable channels. Microsoft, though, claims that the device was malfunctioning when the FCC tested it. From the article: 'In a letter to the FCC Monday, Microsoft said the scanner in one of two prototypes was damaged and "operated at a severely degraded level. The damaged scanner accounted for the entire discrepancy between the Microsoft and the FCC bench test data," said Ed Thomas, a consultant for the White Spaces Coalition and a former chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology.'"

Comments

Soemthing smells fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it highly unlikely that a Microsoft product would unexpectedly malfunction.

Re:Soemthing smells fishy

[bobstaff]

Me too. I expect them to malfunction.

Re:Soemthing smells fishy

[eli pabst]

Yes, in my experience I have never had a Microsoft product set so double the killer delete select all.

/Obligatory

Re:Soemthing smells fishy

[ShieldW0lf]

If a malfunction results in a failure of the local TV signal rather than resulting in a failure of the device, the FCCs decision is the right one.

Devices are expected to fail. Given a long enough timeframe, ALL of them fail.

Re:Soemthing smells fishy

[Intron]

"given that Microsoft never says anything but lies"

A Microsoft PR guy and a linux kernel developer are standing at the entrance to a cave, but you don't know which is which. The cave contains either a dragon or a treasure. The MS guy always lies. The kernel developer never says anything that you could understand. Think of one question that you can ask which will tell you whether to enter the cave.

Re:Soemthing smells fishy

[dosquatch]

"I'm from the RIAA, and I'm here to help."

This will get no useful reaction from the MS troll, but if the other guy grabs me by the throat and throws me into the cave...

I know I don't want to be there.

Responsibility

[kaleco]

I would imagine it's the applicant's responsibility to supply a functioning prototype. Otherwise it's like retroactively claiming you were feeling unwell when you sat your finals and didn't get the grade you were hoping for.

FUD -- Microsoft needs to prove it works

[dwarmstr]

The whole point of FCC testing is to confirm the device works to specifications and doesn't violate FCC rules regarding emissions. It failed, and Microsoft needs to submit their design again. To imply the FCC was somehow faulty as is suggested by the "White Spaces" industry wag man (who also is one of those in-and-out regulatory-to-industry guys) is classic FUD. Fix your prototype, MS, and the FCC will certify it.

Re:FUD -- Microsoft needs to prove it works

[SpaceLifeForm]

Apparently there was a backup device, but the FCC did not use it.

Link

Re:FUD -- Microsoft needs to prove it works

[dwarmstr]

I'd still be rooting for the FCC, which enforces the law. Radio spectrum is precious and already suffers enough interference. The FCC already caved on some rules when they approved the horrific broadband-over-power lines.

MSFT needs to understand "fail safe"

[SmoothTom]

With any product that can disrupt other services - in this instance, taking out your neighbor's TV reception or data link if the "scanner" doesn't detect the "channel" is already in use - the product needs to be designed to "fail safe."

In other words, the device should self-test critical functions, and if any do not meet requirements, the device needs to indicate the failure AND NOT TRANSMIT.

Basic rational design.

If the "scanner" fails to detect an "in use" channel properly (self test to ensure it does), the transmitter shouldn't just push ahead and transmit, it should alarm and go to standby.

If the device can just go ahead and transmit, as Microsoft's did, the FCC is absolutely right: The device (and possibly service) should not be allowed.

--
Tomas

Re:We Need Wireless Broadband

[AK Marc]

Some 3rd world countries have better wireless broadband access than we do.

Well, they should. For a small number of users and no existing infrastructure, wireless is completely superior. However, we have copper lines to almost every house. We get broadband to the home, and wireless is only as good as necessary between the billion or so copper lines run all around. The only places with successful wireless are the places where the copper wires aren't being used effectively for high-speed Internet. You can't put the population of NYC on wireless broadband. The density will not allow everyone to have broadband speeds.

Re:hey...

[LunaticTippy]

Imagine if government ran the roads the way they run the spectrum....

You should search "us road privatization" -- we are starting to run our roads the way they run the spectrum.

Right idea but your proposed test has a bug

[Ungrounded Lightning]

In other words, the device should self-test critical functions, and if any do not meet requirements, the device needs to indicate the failure AND NOT TRANSMIT.

Dead on. But:

If the "scanner" fails to detect an "in use" channel properly (self test to ensure it does), the transmitter shouldn't just push ahead and transmit, it should alarm and go to standby.

Which breaks if you bring it up in an environment that doesn't have any "in use" channels to detect. Like in a remote environment (such as my place in a lightly-settled section of Nevada desert) which has zero detectable TV signals and virtually no daytime broadcast radio - exactly the sort of place you'd want to "wire for broadband" with wireless.

IMHO the right algorithm is not an up-front self-test, but a CYA check during turn-up:
  - Check for in-use channel. If not found:
  - Momentarily make a VERY SMALL amount of signal of your own and see if you detect that, to check the detector. If you do:
  - THEN turn on normal transmitter power.

Re:White spaces != unused

[badc0ffee]

There is perception amongst many others that /dev/null is unused. They just don't realize you can back up your entire system there without using any media. At least until you get a bit bucket overflow.

Keep the white space white!

Re:Another public relations misfire

[Control Group]

Right, because of course the other companies involved simply decided that the FCC is all-wise, and have no interest in the decision being appealed. It's utterly beyond the realm of possibility that they collectively decided to use the member with the best PR machine to protest the decision. This is obviously Microsoft branching out on its own hook against the wishes of the other members of the coalition in an evil plot to TAKE OVER THE WORLD, MUAHAHAHA!!